Charvaka

Charvaka, unorthodox school of Indian philosophy significant for its materialism and atheism. Charvakas rejected the notion of an afterworld, karma, liberation (moksha), the authority of the Vedas (Hindu sacred scriptures), and the existence of a soul or self that survives death. They believed direct perception (pratyaksha; Sanskrit: “present before the eyes”) was the only valid source of knowledge, and this informed their assumptions about the nature of reality and their sense of ethics.

No primary texts from the Charvaka school survive. It is believed to have emerged about 600 bce and matured about the 6th to 7th century ce. Although Charvaka doctrine seemingly disappeared by the end of the 12th century, its historical importance is confirmed by the lengthy attempts to refute it found in both Buddhist and orthodox Hindu philosophical texts, which also constitute the main sources for knowledge of the doctrine.

History and etymology

Ajita Kesakambali, an ancient Indian philosopher active about the 6th century bce, is the earliest known materialist authority in Indian philosophy and the forerunner to the Charvaka school of thought. The origins of the word Charvaka are debated. Some traditions hold that Charvaka was the name of the philosopher who first articulated the doctrine; others attribute its founding to a philosopher called Brihaspati, who is sometimes said to have been either the teacher or disciple of Charvaka (and in some sources believed to be the Hindu deity of the same name). Another theory links the word to the Sanskrit root charv (to chew), a reference to the school’s hedonistic orientation.

Discover how ordinary objects work, and expand your understanding of the familiar.

SIGN UP

" height="20" alt="HEW Logo">

Thank you for signing up!"

Back to homepage

By clicking "Sign Up", you consent to the Britannica Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

More From Britannica

Indian philosophy: The prelogical period

The term Lokayata is often used interchangeably with Charvaka. It means “prevalent in the world” or “prevalent among people,” suggesting a worldview rooted in empirical, worldly experience. Some scholars suggest that Lokayata may have originally referred to popular philosophy of skeptical reasoning, later evolving into the more defined materialist doctrine of Charvaka with its emphasis on pleasure as the aim of life about 1000 CE, in reaction to the growth of ascetic and ritual ideas of extant Hindu philosophy.

Charvaka materialism has been compared to materialist philosophical traditions in other parts of the world, such as the atomism of Democritus or the skepticism of Epicurus in ancient Greece, which similarly emphasized sensory experience and denied supernatural explanations. Though there is no definitive proof of the direct impact of Charvaka thought on other schools of philosophy, scholars speculate that it may have had an impact on the development of some Chinese Buddhist teachings through the Chinese Buddhists’ opposition to it.

Epistemology

Charvakas accepted only direct sensory perception (pratyaksha) as a valid means of knowledge (pramana; Sanskrit: “a means of acquiring certain knowledge”). They rejected inference (anumana; Sanskrit: “act of inferring or drawing a conclusion from given premises”), arguing that causal links between phenomena could not be established with certainty without observing a cause and its effects directly in every case. They believed hidden conditions (upadhi; Sanskrit: “qualification” or “condition”) could alter outcomes, making it impossible to establish universal relations that could be used for deduction. Likewise, they dismissed other means of knowledge such as comparison (upamana; Sanskrit: “recognition of likeness”) and testimony (shabda; Sanskrit: “verbal communication”), considering them to depend ultimately on inference or unverifiable assumptions. This approach extended to how they believed objects behave in general. Charvakas acknowledged that objects have inherent properties (svabhava; Sanskrit: “inherent disposition”) but argued that one can’t assume these properties are universal.

Metaphysics

The Charvakas’ understanding of the nature of the world followed from their commitment to perception. While some extant philosophies believed in five constituent elements of the material world (panchbhuta, Sanskrit: “the five elements”)—air, water, earth, fire, and ether—Charvakas believed in only four and rejected ether as it could not be experienced by the senses. They also rejected belief in a soul, afterlife, or God, since none could be verified through the senses.

Explore Britannica Premium!

The trusted destination for professionals, college students, and lifelong learners.

SUBSCRIBE

Charvakas accepted the reality of consciousness but considered it a byproduct of bodily matter—a phenomenon arising from the right combination of elements—rather than evidence of an immaterial soul or divine principle. This stood in contrast to other Indian philosophical systems such as Samkhya, which linked consciousness to an eternal soul or self and did not believe consciousness arises from material existence.

Ethics

Traditional Indian philosophy identifies four aims of human life (purushartha, Sanskrit: “object of human pursuit”): righteousness (dharma), wealth (artha), pleasure (kama), and liberation (moksha). Charvakas differed from this schema. They rejected the concept of liberation as far as it was understood as the freedom of the soul from the cycle of birth and death because they did not believe in the existence of a soul. They also rejected dharma because it relied on the authority of scripture, which they considered an invalid source of knowledge.

Thus, only wealth and pleasure remained valid pursuits in the Charvaka worldview, with wealth considered to be only a means to achieve pleasure. For this reason, other philosophical schools were critical of Charvaka, but scholars suggest the materialist views of this school of philosophy contributed to the intellectual context that enabled works such as Kautilya’s Artha-shastra (“The Science of Material Gain”), though the degree of its influence is debated.